AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the respondent, a self-represented litigant, appealing against the district court's issuance of protective orders that prevent her from contacting her biological daughters, the petitioners, for a ten-year period. The respondent contends she has not harmed the petitioners, created a hostile environment, or intended to harass them. She argues her actions, including social media posts and incidental encounters with the petitioners and their adoptive parents, were well-meaning (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argues that she has not harmed the petitioners, has not created a hostile environment, wishes to maintain contact with her daughters and their siblings, denies following and taking pictures of the petitioners and their adoptive parents, claims her social media posts are merely expressions of her opinions, and insists her encounters with the petitioners and their adoptive parents were coincidental (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's issuance of protective orders prohibiting the respondent from contacting her biological daughters for ten years was justified.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to issue protective orders against the respondent, prohibiting her from contacting the petitioners for a ten-year period (para 6).

Reasons

• Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Megan P. Duffy, and Briana H. Zamora concurred in the decision. The court considered the respondent's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive, noting that the respondent did not deny the facts as presented and failed to provide compelling arguments or evidence to overturn the proposed disposition. The court emphasized that self-represented litigants are bound by the same rules as those with counsel and noted the respondent's failure to adequately describe relevant testimony or provide a substantive argument for reviewing the audio recordings of the hearings. Ultimately, the court found no reason to deviate from its proposed disposition to affirm the protective orders (paras 1-6).